Vinay K. Rathi

Sharing of clinical trial data among trialists: a cross sectional survey

Objective To investigate clinical trialists’ opinions and experiences of sharing of clinical trial data with investigators who are not directly collaborating with the research team. Design and setting Cross sectional, web based survey. Participants Clinical trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factor in 2011. Main outcome measures Support for and prevalence of data sharing through data repositories and in response to individual requests, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests. Results Of 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). In principle, 236 (74%) thought that sharing de-identified data through data repositories should be required, and 229 (72%) thought that investigators should be required to share de-identified data in response to individual requests. In practice, only 56 (18%) indicated that they were required by the trial funder to deposit the trial data in a repository; of these 32 (57%) had done so. In all, 149 respondents (47%) had received an individual request to share their clinical trial data; of these, 115 (77%) had granted and 56 (38%) had denied at least one request. Respondents’ most common concerns about data sharing were related to appropriate data use, investigator or funder interests, and protection of research subjects. Conclusions We found strong support for sharing clinical trial data among corresponding authors of recently published trials in high impact general medical journals who responded to our survey, including a willingness to share data, although several practical concerns were identified.

Industry ties in otolaryngology: initial insights from the physician payment sunshine act.

Objective To characterize nonresearch payments made by industry to otolaryngologists in order to explore how the potential for conflicts of interests varies among otolaryngologists and compares between otolaryngologists and other surgical specialists. Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional database analysis. Setting Open Payments program database recently released by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Subjects Surgeons nationwide who were identified as receiving nonresearch payment from industry in accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Methods The proportion of otolaryngologists receiving payment, the mean payment per otolaryngologist, and the standard deviation thereof were determined using the Open Payments database and compared to other surgical specialties. Otolaryngologists were further compared by specialization, census region, sponsor, and payment amount. Results Less than half of otolaryngologists (48.1%) were reported as receiving payments over the study period, the second smallest proportion among surgical specialties. Otolaryngologists received the lowest mean payment per compensated individual (

Characteristics of Clinical Studies Conducted Over the Total Product Life Cycle of High-Risk Therapeutic Medical Devices Receiving FDA Premarket Approval in 2010 and 2011

573) compared to other surgical specialties. Although otolaryngology had the smallest variance in payment among surgical specialties (SD,

Orthopaedic Surgeons Receive the Most Industry Payments to Physicians but Large Disparities are Seen in Sunshine Act Data

2806), the distribution was skewed by top earners; the top 10% of earners accounted for 87% (

Predictors of clinical trial data sharing: exploratory analysis of a cross-sectional survey

2,199,254) of all payment to otolaryngologists. Otolaryngologists in the West census region were less likely to receive payments (38.6%, P < .001). Conclusion Over the study period, otolaryngologists appeared to have more limited financial ties with industry compared to other surgeons, though variation exists within otolaryngology. Further refinement of the Open Payments database is needed to explore differences between otolaryngologists and leverage payment information as a tool for self-regulation.

How do Orthopaedic Devices Change After Their Initial FDA Premarket Approval

IMPORTANCE The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves high-risk medical devices, those that support or sustain human life or present potential unreasonable risk to patients, via the Premarket Approval (PMA) pathway. The generation of clinical evidence to understand device safety and effectiveness is shifting from predominantly premarket to continual study throughout the total product life cycle. OBJECTIVE To characterize the clinical evidence generated for high-risk therapeutic devices over the total product life cycle. DESIGN AND SETTING All clinical studies of high-risk therapeutic devices receiving initial market approval via the PMA pathway in 2010 and 2011 identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and publicly available FDA documents as of October 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Studies were characterized by type (pivotal, studies that served as the basis of FDA approval; FDA-required postapproval studies [PAS]; or manufacturer/investigator-initiated); premarket or postmarket; status (completed, ongoing, or terminated/unknown); and design features, including enrollment, comparator, and longest duration of primary effectiveness end point follow-up. RESULTS In 2010 and 2011, 28 high-risk therapeutic devices received initial marketing approval via the PMA pathway. We identified 286 clinical studies of these devices: 82 (28.7%) premarket and 204 (71.3%) postmarket, among which there were 52 (18.2%) nonpivotal premarket studies, 30 (10.5%) pivotal premarket studies, 33 (11.5%) FDA-required PAS, and 171 (59.8%) manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies. Six of 33 (18.2%) PAS and 20 of 171 (11.7%) manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies were reported as completed. No postmarket studies were identified for 5 (17.9%) devices; 3 or fewer were identified for 13 (46.4%) devices overall. Median enrollment was 65 patients (interquartile range [IQR], 25-111), 241 patients (IQR, 147-415), 222 patients (IQR, 119-640), and 250 patients (IQR, 60-800) for nonpivotal premarket, pivotal, FDA-required PAS, and manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies, respectively. Approximately half of all studies used no comparator (pivotal: 13/30 [43.3%]; completed postmarket: 16/26 [61.5%]; ongoing postmarket: 70/153 [45.8%]). Median duration of primary effectiveness end point follow-up was 3.0 months (IQR, 3.0-12.0), 9.0 months (IQR, 0.3-12.0), and 12.0 months (IQR, 7.0-24.0) for pivotal, completed postmarket, and ongoing postmarket studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among high-risk therapeutic devices approved via the FDA PMA pathway, total product life cycle evidence generation varied in both the number and quality of premarket and postmarket studies, with approximately 13% of initiated postmarket studies completed between 3 and 5 years after FDA approval.

Association of genes with physiological functions by comparative analysis of pooled expression microarray data.

BackgroundIndustry payments made to physicians by drug and device manufacturers or group purchasing organizations are now reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a part of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Initial reports from the program show that orthopaedic surgeons lead all physician specialties in total and average industry payments. However, before further discussion of these payments and their implications can take place, it remains to be seen whether these figures are a true reflection of the field of orthopaedic surgery in general, rather than the result of a few outlier physicians in the field. In addition, the nature and sources of these funds should be determined to better inform the national dialogue surrounding these payments.Questions/PurposesWe asked: (1) How do industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons compare with payments to physicians and surgeons in other fields, in terms of median payments and the Gini index of disparity? (2) How much do payments to the highest-receiving orthopaedic surgeons contribute to total payments? (3) What kind of industry payments are orthopaedic surgeons receiving? (4) How much do the highest-paying manufacturers contribute to total payments to orthopaedic surgeons?Materials and MethodsWe reviewed the most recent version of the CMS Sunshine Act Open Payments database released on December 19, 2014, containing data on payments made between August 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Data on total payments to individual physicians, physician specialty, the types of payments made, and the manufacturers making payments were reviewed. The Gini index of statistical dispersion was calculated for payments made to orthopaedic surgeons and compared with payments made to physicians and surgeons in all other medical specialties. A Gini index of 0 indicates complete equality of payments to everyone in the population, whereas an index of 1 indicates complete inequality, or all income going to one individual.ResultsA total of 15,376 orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments during the 5-month period were identified, accounting for USD 109,846,482. The median payment to orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments was USD 121 (interquartile range, USD 34–619). The top 10% of orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments (1538 surgeons) received at least USD 4160 and accounted for 95% of total payments. Royalties and patent licenses accounted for 69% of all industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons.ConclusionsEven as a relatively small specialty, orthopaedic surgeons received substantial payments from industry (more than USD 110 million) during the 5-month study period. Whether there is a true return of value from these payments remains to be seen; however, future ethical and policy discussions regarding industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons should take into account the large disparities in payments that are present and also the nature of the payments being made. It is possible that patients and policymakers may view industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons more positively in light of these new findings.Level of EvidenceLevel III, Economic and Decision Analysis.

Postmarket Modifications of High-Risk Therapeutic Devices in Otolaryngology Cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration

BackgroundA number of research funders, biomedical journals, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies have adopted policies advocating or mandating that clinical trialists share data with external investigators. We therefore sought to determine whether certain characteristics of trialists or their trials are associated with more unfavorable perceptions of data sharing. To date, no prior research has addressed this issue.MethodsWe conducted an exploratory analysis of responses to a cross-sectional, web-based survey. The survey sample consisted of trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factors in 2011. The following key characteristics were examined: trialists’ academic productivity and geographic location, trial funding source and size, and the journal in which it was published. Main outcome measures included: support for data sharing in principle, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests. Chi-squared tests and Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess statistical significance.ResultsOf 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). Both support for data sharing and reporting of specific concerns with sharing data through repositories exceeded 75%, but neither differed by trialist or trial characteristics. However, there were some significant differences in explicit reasons to share or withhold data. Respondents located in Western Europe more frequently indicated they have or would share data in order to receive academic benefits or recognition when compared with respondents located in the United States or Canada (58 versus 31%). In addition, respondents who were the most academically productive less frequently indicated they have or would withhold data in order to protect research subjects when compared with less academically productive respondents (24 versus 40%), as did respondents who received industry funding when compared with those who had not (24 versus 43%).ConclusionsRespondents indicated strong support for data sharing overall. There were few notable differences in how trialists viewed the benefits and risks of data sharing when categorized by trialists’ academic productivity and geographic location, trial funding source and size, and the journal in which it was published.

Clinical Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval of High-Risk Otolaryngologic Devices, 2000-2014:

BackgroundThe FDA approves novel, high-risk medical devices through the premarket approval (PMA) process based on clinical evidence supporting device safety and effectiveness. Devices subsequently may undergo postmarket modifications that are approved via one of several PMA supplement review tracks, usually without additional supporting clinical data. While orthopaedic devices cleared via the less rigorous 510(k) pathway have been studied previously, devices cleared through the PMA pathway and those receiving postmarket PMA supplements warrant further investigation.Questions/purposesWe asked: What are (1) the types of original orthopaedic devices receiving FDA PMA approval, (2) the number and rate of postmarket device changes approved per device, (3) the types of PMA supplement review tracks used, (4) the types of device changes approved via the various review tracks, and (5) the number of device recalls and market withdrawals that have occurred for these devices?MethodsAll original PMA-approved orthopaedic devices between January 1982 and December 2014 were identified in the publically available FDA PMA database. The number of postmarket device changes approved, the PMA supplement review track used, the types of postmarket changes, and any FDA recalls for each device were assessed.ResultsSeventy original orthopaedic devices were approved via the FDA PMA pathway between 1982 and 2014. These devices included 34 peripheral joint implants or prostheses, 18 spinal implants or prostheses, and 18 other devices or materials. These devices underwent a median 6.5 postmarket changes during their lifespan or 1.0 changes per device–year (interquartile range, 0.4–1.9). The rate of new postmarket device changes approved per active device, increased from less than 0.5 device changes per year in 1983 to just fewer than three device changes per year in 2014, or an increase of 0.05 device changes per device per year in linear regression analysis (95% CI, 0.04–0.07). Among the 765 total postmarket changes, 172 (22%) altered device design or components. The majority of the design changes were reviewed via either the real-time review track (n = 98; 57%), intended for minor design changes, or the 180-day review track (n = 71; 41%), intended for major design changes. Finally, a total of 12 devices had FDA recalls at some point during their lifespan, two being for hip prostheses with high revision rates.ConclusionsRelatively few orthopaedic devices undergo the FDA PMA process before reaching the market. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware that high-risk medical devices cleared via the FDA’s PMA pathway do undergo considerable postmarket device modification after reaching the market, with potential for design “drift,” ie, shifting away from the initially tested and approved device designs.Clinical RelevanceAs the ultimate end-users of these devices, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware that even among high-risk medical devices approved via the FDA’s PMA pathway, considerable postmarket device modification occurs. Continued postmarket device monitoring will be essential to limit patient safety risks.

Publication of Clinical Studies Supporting FDA Premarket Approval for High-Risk Cardiovascular Devices Between 2011 and 2013: A Cross-sectional Study

The physiological functions of a tissue in the body are carried out by its complement of expressed genes. Genes that execute a particular function should be more specifically expressed in tissues that perform the function. Given this premise, we mined public microarray expression data to build a database of genes ranked by their specificity of expression in multiple organs. The database permitted the accurate identification of genes and functions known to be specific to individual organs. Next, we used the database to predict transcriptional regulators of brown adipose tissue (BAT) and validated two candidate genes. Based upon hypotheses regarding pathways shared between combinations of BAT or white adipose tissue (WAT) and other organs, we identified genes that met threshold criteria for specific or counterspecific expression in each tissue. By contrasting WAT to the heart and BAT, the two most mitochondria-rich tissues in the body, we discovered a novel function for the transcription factor ESRRG in the induction of BAT genes in white adipocytes. Because the heart and other estrogen-related receptor gamma (ESRRG)-rich tissues do not express BAT markers, we hypothesized that an adipocyte co-regulator acts with ESRRG. By comparing WAT and BAT to the heart, brain, kidney and skeletal muscle, we discovered that an isoform of the transcription factor sterol regulatory element binding transcription factor 1 (SREBF1) induces BAT markers in C2C12 myocytes in the presence of ESRRG. The results demonstrate a straightforward bioinformatic strategy to associate genes with functions. The database upon which the strategy is based is provided so that investigators can perform their own screens.